Welcome to the Ohio Department of Rehabilitaion and Correction

Please Note: You are viewing the non-styled version of Ohio Department of Rehabilitaion and Correction. Either your browser does not support Cascading Style Sheets (CSS) or it is disabled. We suggest upgrading your browser to the latest version of your favorite Internet browser.

Related Links

Statutory Authorities

Programs

Any Intensive Program Prison should possess the characteristics that have been shown
by research-based evidence to be associated with effective correctional programs. In
addition, we should ensure that any IPP devised and implemented by the Department be
not only compatible with but also supportive of other departmental initiatives, such
as Reentry and Community Justice. To that end, the following elements are considered
crucial to an effective, well-run program:

The program purpose and goals must be clear. This will ensure that the program
supports the goals of Reentry as well as providing a way to evaluate the effectiveness
of the program.

IPP programs must be viewed as credible alternatives to continued incarceration
by judges and other stakeholders. Thus, programs must be demonstrably effective, inmates
must meet appropriately high standards for successful completion, the operation of the
programs must remain faithful to the program model, and inmates must be accountable for
their behavior.

IPP programs must address criminogenic needs. This point comes from the
"what works?" literature and says that the programs which are most effective in reducing
offender recidivism are those which target the specific criminogenic needs of the offender.
[1] This idea suggests that every program we
offer as the major focus of an IPP should be one that provides treatment for a criminogenic
need. To the greatest extent possible, this principle ought to apply also to the secondary
programs offered by IPPs.

Each offender assigned to an IPP should have been assessed as having a need in the
criminogenic need area targeted by the primary IPP program. Ideally, each inmate selected
for participation in an IPP would have been assessed as having a "considerable need" in the
IPP"s primary program area. However, inmates who are assessed at the "some need" level in
a program area will also be considered for IPP participation. This element is relatively
straightforward for programs such as education and substance abuse treatment. For IPPs with
other types of primary programs (e.g., an IPP with a community justice focus), however,
inmates should have at least some need in not only the primary program area, but in the
secondary program areas as well.

Reentry planning will still begin early in the reception process; if the offender is
IPP-eligible and is approved for a program,
the assigned IPP program should be incorporated
on the "offender"s RAP as the selected program for the assessed need(s).

IPP programs should target the appropriate populations.

From a population control point of view, selection of participants should follow
the suggestions by Parent discussed above. IPPs should select inmates with
sentences
long enough that their reduction will have a discernible impact on population.

Regardless of the programmatic focus of the IPP,
in most instances selected inmates
should have scored at the "Reentry Intensive" level on their initial risk assessments.

The period of intensive programming in the institution must be
followed by a period
of community supervision that includes appropriate treatment (e.g., referral to community
service providers, relapse prevention, etc.).[2]
Petersilia suggests that this period of supervision programming is essential to sustaining
effective intervention (2003: 179).

Research suggests that "intensive programs" last for three to nine months.
[3] With our IPPs, the institutional
period will take only a part of the recommended duration of the program.
Therefore,
compatible, matching programming must be utilized under community supervision to
reinforce and complete the treatment effect.

Research also shows that the most effective intensive
programs occupy between 40 percent and
70 percent of an offender's time in the program.[4]
This should be the standard for the primary focus of the program; secondary programs should occupy
most of the remaining time.

To the greatest extent appropriate,
programs should be cognitive/behavioral in
approach.[5]

"Successful completion" of the IPP means completion of both the institutional phase and
the community supervision/treatment phase. Although under current practice, sentence
reduction occurs after successful completion of only the ninety-day program, the Work Group
supports the view that both phases must be seen as essential to ensure that the treatment is
most effective. A period of post-release supervision of a reasonable duration, including at
least so time at the intensive supervision level, should be required for all program
participants.

Candidates for an Intensive Program Prison may be required to go through a thirty-day
pre-treatment curriculum on motivation in order to maximize the effect of the subsequent
programming. This curriculum will stress techniques designed to develop the candidates"
"readiness to change."[6] An indicator
of that determination of motivation and readiness to change will be the willingness of the
inmate to complete the application to participate in the IPP program.

As part of the application, IPP participants should be required to agree to language
stating that they will not be permitted to voluntarily withdraw from the program during
the first three weeks.[7]

Intensive Program Prison programs should be
pre-approved for Reentry purposes.
Therefore, each program curriculum (which includes both primary and secondary programs)
should contain two Community Justice elements or components.
[8]

Cullen, Francis T. and Paul Gendreau. (2000). "Assessing Correctional Rehabilitation:
Policy, Practice, and Prospects," in NIJ Criminal Justice 2000: Changes in Decision
Making and Discretion in the Criminal Justice System. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice.

Field, Gary. (1998). Continuity of Offender Treatment: Institution to the Community.
In Continuity of Offender Treatment from Institution to the Community. Office of
National Drug Control Policy, Washington, D.C.